muppetfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Flapsole Sneakers
Frank Oz? Image:Goofball1.jpg Image:Goofball2.jpg File:Ozcomparison.jpg Am I nuts to think that the other "dad" (behind Jerry Juhl) and the second cereal eater (just before Jane Henson) are Frank Oz? -- Galen : I think you're nuts, yeah. (With all respect.) I think those are two different people, and neither of them looks like Frank Oz. -- Danny (talk) 01:49, October 9, 2009 (UTC) ::Yeah, I don't recognize the other dad but Frank seems to be absent in this. I've pondered who it could be (maybe somebody like Al Gottesman, who I think was already Jim Henson's lawyer by then, but who knows). These would be good things to ask Karen Falk next time the opportunity arises (she may not even need to check files). The eater actually looks just a little to me like Richard Hunt but I don't think it is (it's really harder to tell from that angle and expression anyway, but it's clearly a young man, younger and different looking than the second "dad"). -- Andrew Leal (talk) 02:24, October 9, 2009 (UTC) :::But there are clearly two male cereal eaters before we see Jane Henson. The first guy we get a good look at, and he's clean-shaven. The second guy is the other "dad", who needs a shave, has distinctive teeth and has a dark blemish on his left cheek. Plus, the two male cereal eaters are wearing different shirts. It may not be Oz (I'm still not entirely convinced it isn't), but there are two other adult males in the spot besides Jerry Juhl. -- Galen ::::I took soome screengrabs, which are a big help in these kinds of discussions. It's still clearly not Oz as the dad, compared to his appearances in Time Piece and others from this time (a few can be glimpsed on Frank Oz Cameos, though not the best shots, but comparison with those films in motion shows it's not him). I see what you mean now about the second eater, so I put the two cereal images above. The second mouth is really difficult to tell (I almost thought it was Don Sahlin). It maybe could be Frank Oz's, but if so it's not the second dad's, and really, like I said, it's not something I think we can determine on a talk page. Karen Falk or someone would need to answer it, unless someone around here has access to a circa 1966 Muppets Inc. staff photo with labels or something similarly useful (I suspect the other woman may be Diana Birkenfield, but we have no photos of her and again, it needs a source really). -- Andrew Leal (talk) 02:42, October 9, 2009 (UTC) :::::The 2nd face is too thin to be Oz at that time. —Scott (talk) 03:39, October 9, 2009 (UTC) ::::::Okay, I promise not to go on about this, but please take a gander over here: http://www.grundoon.com/ozcomparison.jpg (Sorry, I can't figure out how to post the jpg here.) First, there really can be no denying that the second cereal eater (left) is the same guy as the second dad (center). Just look at those teeth; they're distinctive (kind of long in the canine teeth) and identical. Blemish on the left cheek, needs a shave. The same person. ::::::Now, take a look at the teeth of the young Frank Oz (right). Identical. Look also at the shape of the nose, slant of the eyebrows, and even the freckle, mole, or whatever it is on the left cheek. They're all the same. The only thing that seems off to me is that the eye color of "second dad" looks darker, but that shot has an odd greenish tint anyway. ::::::Okay, that's it. I'm personally convinced it's Oz. But I'll shut up about it unless other evidence surfaces. -- Galen ::::::Addendum: I just asked Rick Lyon (who had never seen the clip) if he recognized anyone other than the Hensons and Juhl. I *never* mentioned Oz, but Rick ID'd him! Okay, shutting up now. -- Galen :::::::You know what? The first picture is clearly not Frank. But as for the second, I think you might be right. I really though his cheeks looked too pudgy for what I was thinking was a thinner Frank Oz in the 60s. But the comparison shot of the teeth sells it for me. —Scott (talk) 04:42, October 9, 2009 (UTC) ::::::::Their eyes are completely different; I really don't think that's Frank. The fact that we even have to discuss it and compare teeth sizes is a good indication that it's not him. We're superfans; we recognized Jerry Juhl in an instant. I don't think that it's plausible that we wouldn't recognize Frank Oz. We know what he looks like; that's not him. -- Danny (talk) 05:09, October 9, 2009 (UTC) :::::::::The comparison makes a better argument, and it makes it clearer where you're coming from. Comparing all the features and so on I'm more inclined to agree and yet strangely the dad still looks strikingly unlike Oz, although a big disadvantage to all of this is that we're only seeing partial views and the absence of the trademark spectacles. I won't swear it's impossible for it to be him, or that this was absolutely the only 1960s on-camera appearance where he took his glasses off (which he had in everything else, from meeting films to Time Piece to those things with Raymond Scott and so on), but I'd suggest once again that we table this until/unless someone can contact Karen Falk or someone else with access to the archives or who was around or involved. That's the best evidence, over teeth comparisons. I'm almost beginning to think it *might* be him myself (looking at the eyebags), but really a direct source is best at this point, I think, particularly since we do like to cite things in the articles (and if the ID isn't immediately obvious to at least the majority, then it does require a source to avoid subsequent changes or disputes). -- Andrew Leal (talk) 06:23, October 9, 2009 (UTC) ::::::::::Thanks to Danny for posting my Oz comparison jpeg on this page above; it's the third thumbnail (click to enlarge). I just wanted to make it clear, in case someone else comes along and wants to judge for themselves, that the first thumbnail above is the "first cereal eater", and no one is saying that's Frank Oz. The second thumbnail is the "second cereal eater", who is also visible in my Oz comparison jpeg. -- Galen :::::::::::To be fair, I don't think Frank's cameo in Great Muppet Caper looks like him, but the Muppet Show Newsletter says that it is. As for this comparison, I agree that the eyes don't look exactly the same, but the teeth, nose and chin are identical. If that's not Frank, it's an amazing coincidence. —Scott (talk) 15:35, October 13, 2009 (UTC) I honestly have no idea what you guys are seeing. Maybe if you spend a lot of time focusing on someone's teeth rather than looking in their eyes, you can believe that they're the same person, but when you look at that guy's face, it's not the same guy. We all watched that film and instantly said -- that's Jerry Juhl, that's Jane Henson, that's Brian Henson -- even when they flickered by in a half second. We know what these people look like. If that guy was Frank, we would all recognize him. I found a picture of Frank's cameo in GMC, which is the only time I've ever seen him without his glasses. He does look different without his glasses, but he's still recognizably Frank. He doesn't look like that guy. -- Danny (talk) 20:45, October 13, 2009 (UTC) :The eyeborws, lower eyelids, nose, teeth, shape of the smile, chin, cheek structure are all identical. I think the glasses really make a difference for the eyes. —Scott (talk) 21:10, October 13, 2009 (UTC) ::I still say lets call the whole thing off until we get a source (Karen Falk, an interview, something solid). That's how the GMC cameo was proven and I think that's what it will take in this case for it to be used in the article. Otherwise, it feels like this discussion is just going to go back and forth. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 21:14, October 13, 2009 (UTC) :::Well, when you put it like that, it does look like the same guy. -- Danny (talk) 21:14, October 13, 2009 (UTC) ::::Some quick and dirty Photoshoped glasses: Image:Flapsole frank 1.jpg| Image:Flapsole frank 2.jpg|add glasses Image:Flapsole frank 3.jpg|add glasses and moustache :::Looks like Frank to me. -- Brad D. (talk) 04:20, October 14, 2009 (UTC) ::::Okay, you guys are right! I concede. Your photoshopping has convinced me. It's Frank! I concede. It's Frank. -- Danny (talk) 05:52, October 14, 2009 (UTC) :::::Yay! The Photoshopped glasses and mustache did the trick! (Now I'm not so sure about that guy on the *right*!) Truly, I watched this clip at least a dozen times without ever suspecting Frank was in it. It's weird how different he looks, and the strangely dark eyes don't help matters. Without that almost perfect Oz/Henson/Rowlf picture as a comparison point, I never would have been able to convince myself. But after all, it's not like we're trying to say it's Lee Harvey Oswald in the Flapsole Sneakers spot! Everyone felt Oz was conspicuous in his absence. :::::I heard a story on a Sesame shoot once, and I wish I could remember who told it. It wasn't someone who was "there", but someone recounting a story they had heard. Maybe it was Kevin Clash, but I really don't remember. Anyway, the story goes that back in the early days of Sesame, Frank had a pair of sneakers, and on one sneaker the sole in the front had completely separated from the rest of the shoe. And Frank used to have conversations between whatever puppet he was working and his sneaker, which he would make "talk" by wiggling his toes to flap the sole. Apparently he would have the entire crew in hysterics with this. So I've wondered if in some tangential way, the concept of "Flapsole Sneakers" comes from this. If it was the early days of Sesame, the timing isn't right, since this spot predates Sesame. Maybe he kept these sneakers around just to do this bit in the studio? Anyway, this is a 15+ year old memory on my part, so I may well not be relating it as it was told to me by someone who wasn't even there to begin with. But I'm sure the concept of "Frank flapping the sole of his sneaker to make it talk" is correct. :::::According to "The Works", this spot was made around the time they were shooting film for Cyclia. Oz states "Jim actually asked me to be his film editor. I didn't know film at all at that time, but he taught me and encouraged me -- convinced me I could do it. It's where I got the first experience that enabled me to become a movie director." Pure conjecture on my part, but I wonder if this project was more Frank's than Jim's? Or if Frank at least edited it? Galenfott 13:50, October 14, 2009 (UTC) ::::::Oh, we should add that The Works quote to the page; I didn't realize it was mentioned in there. Now that we've settled the Frank question, the important thing to figure out is: Who's the "Moms" lady? -- Danny (talk) 19:37, October 15, 2009 (UTC) :::::::I want to say that I've seen her in something else from those early Henson years. But I can't remember what. —Scott (talk) 19:49, October 15, 2009 (UTC) ::::::::Sorry, I worded that poorly; "The Works" doesn't mention "Flapsole Sneakers", but it says they were shooting film for Cyclia "as early as October of 1966". Using our reckoning that "Flapsole" was made in '66 or '67, I'm just deducing that it was made while they were shooting Cyclia footage. As for the Mom, I too feel very strongly I've seen her in some other early Henson piece. I would have said it was Time Piece, but she's not in it. -- Galenfott 20:05, October 15, 2009 (UTC) :::::::::I think the mom may be in the second Wilson's Meats film on YouTube, at 4:55 with the beach ball, and 5:01 with the ham. Terrible quality though, and hard to tell. -- Galenfott 03:44, October 18, 2009 (UTC) ::::::::::I just saw that the Frank Oz "sole flapping" story I related above is recounted by Jon Stone in Louise Gikow's new Sesame Street book! - Galenfott 17:21, January 3, 2010 (UTC) Year Assuming the toddler is one of the Henson kids (probably a safe bet since we see three others), then it would have to be John (b. 1965), which puts the year this spot was made as 1966 or 1967. Lisa would be around 6, Cheryl 5, and Brian 4. I don't think the toddler can be Heather (b. 1970), as that would make the three oldest kids older than they appear to be here. -- Galen :Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. I think that's likely, although I wouldn't necessarily put that in the article unless we have a better source. -- Danny (talk) 13:15, October 9, 2009 (UTC) Hits the spot Does anybody think that "Flapsole Sneakers hit the spot" is a reference to the jingle "Pepsi Cola hits the spot" (as heard here)? That's the first thing I thought of, rather than "Camptown Races". -- Ken (talk) 04:10, October 7, 2009 (UTC) :Hm, could be. —Scott (talk) 04:25, October 7, 2009 (UTC) ::The tune is clearly Camptown Races, so there's no question in the jingle. But the punchline wording is the same as Pepsi and even the "Spot" has a Cola look to it (but more Coke than Pepsi). I may try to look for more 1960s versions of Pepsi advertising to be sure. The one used there is taken from 1940s (it was big on radio, and by the 1950s "Be sociable, have a Pepsi" had replaced it) and I think by the 1960s Pepsi had moved on to other approaches unless they went back to it (which could be the case). Still, it's mildly possible. Maybe a note at the bottom, since there's more ambiguity about it. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 04:47, October 7, 2009 (UTC) :::Actually, I just took another listen, so it may be a direct Pepsi take-off after all. I'll still try to dig up more examples to study first, though, but it is seeming more likely to me now. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 04:49, October 7, 2009 (UTC) ::::Yeah, the melody is actually the same as "Pepsi Cola hits the spot", alternating (in the key of C) between the notes G and E. If it were "Camptown Races", there would be an A on the word "hit". So I'd say the Flapsole jingle is a definite parody of the Pepsi jingle, in words and music. -- Galen :::::It is not Camptown Races. "Camptown Races sing this song" is G-G-E-G-A-G-E, whereas "Flapsole Sneakers hit the spot" is G-G-E-E-G-G-E. Somewhat similar, but clearly not the same tune. -- Brad D. (talk) 20:04, October 7, 2009 (UTC) ::::::Thanks, guys! I was going to write out the notes, but I didn't know if it would be understood. I'm glad you had the same idea! -- Ken (talk) 05:19, October 17, 2009 (UTC) :::::::It must be said that musically, Flapsole Sneakers is quite rudimentary. The piano accompaniment starts in C major and then simply walks a triad up the keyboard, fingers locked, avoiding the black keys altogether, each chord emphasizing a new product. So it progresses through C, Dm, Em, F, G, Am, and Bm with a flattened fifth, before ending again on C. The obviousness of this progression makes me feel it was done by someone with no musical training or expertise. And that contributes to my hunch that this piece was never really meant to be screened, but was more of an "in-house editing experiment" kind of thing. I also suspect the entire film was shot without sound and looped later. Henson and Juhl are obviously heard, plus at least one woman. I don't hear any actual "kids". Could that possibly be Juhl saying "Cavity Candies - buy a pot"? Doesn't sound like him, but if not it's a third male voice. -- Galenfott 18:11, October 17, 2009 (UTC)